No, unwitting commission of an offense can be a defense for strict liability crimes. For example, the Washington drug trafficking statute I referenced above allows includes an intent defense, despite being characterized by the legislature and courts as a strict liability offense (look at State v. Cleppe, 635 P.2d 435).
Because the legislature has the power to define what an offense is. The Florida legislature has chosen to exclude knowledge as a required element of the offense. The state is still responsible for proving all the relevant circumstances; intent is simply no longer a relevant circumstance, except as an affirmative defense. Don’t get me wrong; I think this is a terrible idea. It is, however, probably within the power of the legislature.
It makes a big difference as a matter of law, if not fact. If you say that somebody stuffed a package into your hands as the police were busting down the door, and the state produces no evidence to the contrary, that conviction will be tossed notwithstanding the verdict or on appeal.
That would be the case in California too. There is no reasonable doubt in the facts you have given. The authorities discovered the narcotics in the possession of the defendant. Where in the United States is that any different? I agree that your defendant is in fact innocent, but there is sufficient evidence against him to convict him.
Of course, IANACL, but I stayed at a Holiday Inn once.
Knowledge is presumed from the defendants possession. The burden to prove that the possession was unknowing is rightfully in the defendants court. Do you think the state would go through the trouble of searching for exculpatory evidence on the defendants behalf when he was caught in possession?
*Section 893.13 of the Florida Statutes states that it is unlawful for an individual to be in actual or constructive possession of a controlled substance unless it is obtained by a prescription from a doctor.
Actual possession means an individual had physical possession of the drug. This meaning can include:
The drug was on their body,
The drug was in their clothing,
The drug was within their reach, and/or
The drug was in their hand.*
Officer: We found four ounces of pot in really not all that bright’s coat pocket.
RNATB: but I didn’t know it was there
Court: ok then in that case you are free to go.
umm, no it doesn’t work that way otherwise the government would never get a drug conviction as every defendant would claim ignorance of the presence of the drugs.
Congratulations. You’re the first person to think of that one. Perhaps you can borrow my username, since you don’t seem to understand the vast gulf between arrest and conviction.
Nope, one does not bring the car on base, you park across the street, and since it is an appointment for them to check out a ‘new’ car, it is obvious what one is doing.
You can also make an appointment with a cop with a drug dog to check out your car as well. It is one of the public service/things to improve police popularity/community service things.
They are not dumb, it is pretty obvious when you show up with a car with paper plates or a brand new registration and you have called for an appointment.
Short of automatically shooting every person that is using any drug that is not OTC or has a prescription in the back of the head as soon as they are spotted, it isn’t going to do jack shit.
Hell, they more or less do that in China, and they still have a drug problem. And as I recall they bill the family for the round expended. [or at least they used to.]
Frankly they should save the money and manpower and make marijuana legal and control it like cigarettes and alcohol. They could perhaps add peyote and other forms of ‘magic mushroom’ to the legal for adults list, and give a serious look at re-evaluating most other drugs.
Why is that an improper inference for a jury to make? It seems like the very type of inferences that juries make all of the time.
IOW, how can a state possibly prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the weed found in my car was NOT put there by someone else? I can’t imagine that’s the standard anywhere. If so then if a cop pulls me over and finds a bag of weed in the passenger seat, why shouldn’t I remain silent while the prosecution (obviously) fails to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that any of 6 billion other people in the world didn’t put it there?
I suspect that the issue here is more semantics than substance, but it’s an improper inference because of the presumption of innocence, and because of the elements that make up the crime called “Possession of a controlled substance” or whatever.
Taking my state as an example, simple possession of a drug is illegal because of a law that prohibits
First three words, right? Right in there. And everybody knows that the rule is that you have to prove every element of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt to put somebody in jail. If it isn’t proven, and it’s part of the offense, you aren’t guilty of the offense. So in a trial for possession of a drug under that statute, “knowingly or intentionally” has to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Allowing the jury to just assume it’s true is the opposite of that. Might as well invite them to infer that based on the fact that he had drugs, he probably killed somebody at some point, too.
That isn’t to say that the jury can’t make any inferences at all to get to that point. Their inferences just need to be based on facts in evidence. I think you’re suggesting that you think that based on the facts of the average case, a jury will almost always be able to get there, and that’s fine. But they can’t get there on their own without those facts - except in Florida, where the state doesn’t have to prove it at all.
If a guy runs past you in Pennsylvania and hands you a bag, and then a cop comes around the corner and tackles you, and there’s heroin in the bag, where’s the evidence of your intent or knowledge? If it happens in Florida, suddenly we’re asking where’s the evidence of your lack of intent or knowledge? It’s just your word in either case, of course, but there’s a difference.
